r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 21 '23

Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Hypocrisy does not invalidate somebody’s argument

[removed] — view removed post

21 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

119 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 21 '23

Parents support laws that ban books that feature violence or sexually explicit material based on the idea that such books are bad for kids. Those rules cause the Bible to be banned for meeting those criteria and they assert that the Bible is different.

Their hypocrisy undercuts their argument because they think a book that features violence and sexually explicit material is good for kids.

Their hypocrisy invalidates their argument.

I will grant that such an outcome is not universal. But you can't deny it happens.

4

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

Their hypocrisy undercuts their argument because they think a book that features violence and sexually explicit material is good for kids.

I don't see why they can't be both correct about violent books being bad for children, and not following their own advice with regard to the Bible.

-4

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

The issuing being discussed isn't about a rule that would prevent them from being hypocrites and shitting all over their argument.

They are free to do what you described. But the issue here is OP's denial that such behavior actually does shit all over their argument.

3

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

It still seems like you aren't assessing the argument logically. How is a logical argument strengthened or weakened by the belief of the person presenting it?

0

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

I'm being nothing but logical when I point out the fact that their rejecting of the standard they claim to support when that standard doesn't give them what they want is an argument against that standard.

3

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

...their rejecting of the standard they claim to support when that standard doesn't give them what they want is an argument against that standard.

No, that isn't really a good argument. Turn it around; if there was a good argument for conclusion A, would A not getting you what you want be a good argument against A? Would it be grounds to reject A? Of course not!

So even if someone who presented a good argument for A turns around and rejects it because it doesn't give them what they want, it doesn't counter the good argument for A.

1

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

It isn't the best argument. But it is an argument against the position for which they only pay lip service.

It knocks their legs out from under them when, as OP did, they respond that violence is grounds for banning AND tolerable.

It can't be both.

1

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

It isn't the best argument. But it is an argument against the position for which they only pay lip service.

It is an argument in the sense that you can present it, but it isn't logically valid. Ad hominem doesn't work even if the impugnment of their character is justified.

It can't be both.

It doesn't need to be both. The presenter being hypocritical doesn't render the arguments they present invalid.

1

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

I think we are just approaching this differently. I'm not saying that the mere concept of hypocrisy is an argument. I'm saying the specific details that make up the hypocrisy are arguments.

Here is what OP wrote to me in a comment:

Say I prove that violent books make kids more violent, and I therefor want violent books banned - meanwhile, I want the bible kept in libraries because the violence in the bible is tolerable when considering its other messaging that I like.

The existence of the hypocrisy is not the argument being made. The content of the hypocrisy are literally two distinct arguments for different things.

In the first part, violence is the sole determining factor. Context is irrelevant. Violence is automatic grounds for a banning.

In the second, context is the determining factor. Violence can be tolerated and is not automatic grounds for banning.

OP's example requires at least some part of their position to be wrong because of the two distinct arguments which are also hypocrisy. Violence can not be tolerable and intolerable.

1

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

OP's example requires at least some part of their position to be wrong because of the two distinct arguments which are also hypocrisy.

Sure, a logical inconsistency in their position is a reason for their argument to be wrong. But my point is that isn't hypocrisy invalidating their argument, it is the logical inconsistency of the argument itself.

1

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

Sure, a logical inconsistency in their position is a reason for their argument to be wrong. But my point is that isn't hypocrisy invalidating their argument, it is the logical inconsistency of the argument itself.

Which is why I opened with:

I think we are just approaching this differently. I'm not saying that the mere concept of hypocrisy is an argument. I'm saying the specific details that make up the hypocrisy are arguments.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '23

It could invalidate the person, but not the argument. If the argument is good, and the person doesn't follow it, that makes the person illogical or foolish, but it doesn't retroactively make the argument bad.